StackHawk
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to StackHawk's? The following comparison table enables you to
discern the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company’s
cybersecurity needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions in the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
StackHawk
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
49 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
|||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
||
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research Firms
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$47.3M USD
in 5 rounds from 7 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
| CVEs as CNA Researcher |
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
||
|
Bug bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
| Public vulnerability DB |
None
|
||
|
Content
|
Same
|
||
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 8 in common and 5 additional
|
9 documentation sections, 8 in common and 1
additional
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
14-day free trial and PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Open Demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (pro, enterprise, custom). First 2 transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
|||
|
Minimum payment period
|
|||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
20 developers
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
|||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
StackHawk
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day
vulnerability research
|
None
|
|
SLA
|
No | ||
|
Min availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
None
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 12 in common and 55
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
16 standards, 12 in common and 4
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
|||
|
False positives
|
47.89 times better
|
75.32 times better
|
1.24% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
86.11 times better
|
247.60 times better
|
0.31% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 1 in common and 4 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
1 in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
StackHawk
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
|||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
2 functionalities, all in common
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
None
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
|||
|
Scanner origin
|
|||
|
SCA
|
No
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No | ||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IaC
|
No
|
||
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack surface types, 4 in common and
3 additional
|
5 attack surface types, 4 in common and
1 additional
|
|
|
API security testing
|
No
|
4 types of APIs, all in common
|
4 types of APIs, all in common
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
No | ||
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
|||
| Regions | |||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
StackHawk
|
|
SCM
|
6, 3 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, all in common
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
3, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
2, all in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 11 in common and 10 additional
|
11, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
|||
|
Container
|
None | ||
|
SAST
|
|||
|
DAST
|
|||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
None
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Dec 01, 2025.
More like StackHawk
Free trial
Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid Attacks' automated security testing! Start
your 21-day free trial and discover the
benefits of the Continuous
Hacking Essential plan. If you prefer the
Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.